OPERATIONS RESEARCH

CHAPTER VI
LINEAR PROGRAMMING
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS
 INTRODUCTION
SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS (SA)
 SA involves an examination of the potential
impact of changes in any of the parameters
of a problem like:
 Coefficient of the constraints
 Coefficient of the objective function or
 RHS, would affect the optimal solution
Change in the RHS of a
constraint
[Range of Feasibility]
 Examining the shadow price in the final simplex
tableau. These are the values in the Z row in the
slack columns:
Example: A firm that assembles computers and
computer equipments is about to start production of
two microcomputers. Each type of microcomputer
will require assembly time, inspection time, and
storage space. The amount of each of these
resources that can be devoted to the production of
the microcomputers is limited. The manager of the
firm would like to determine the quantity of each
microcomputer to produce in order to maximize the
profit generated by sales of these microcomputers.
Change in the RHS of a constraint
EXAMPLE Cont…
In order to develop a suitable model of the problem, the
manager has met with design and manufacturing personnel. As
a result of those meetings, the manager has obtained the
following information:
Type I Type II
Profit per unit $60 $50
Assembly time/unit 4hrs 10hrs
Inspection time/unit 2hrs 1hr
Storage space/unit 3 cubic ft 3 cubic ft
The manager has also acquired information on the availability of
company resources. These daily available amounts are:
Assembly time 100 hours
Inspection time 22 hours
Storage space 39 cubic feet
Change in the RHS of a constraint
The LPP of the Microcomputer is:
Maximize Z = 60X1 + 50X2
Subject to:
4X1 + 10X2 <= 100
2X1 + X2 <= 22
3X1 + 3X2 <= 39
Final Simplex table:
Cj 60 50 0 0 0 Q
SV
X1 X2 S1 S2 S3

0 S1 0 0 1 6 -16/3 24 Negative
60 X1 1 0 0 1 -1/3 9 of
shadow
50 X2 0 1 0 -1 2/3 4 price
Zj 60 50 0 10 40/3
740
Cj - Z j 0 0 0 -10 -40/3
Change in the RHS of a constraint
EXAMPLE Cont…
A shadow price reveals the amount by which the value of the
objective function would increase if the level of the
constraint was increased by one unit. But it has to be
determined the range over which we can change the right-
hand side quantities and still have the same shadow price,
which is the “Range of Feasibility”.
Thus, divide Quantity Column by the corresponding slack
variable values Q/S to get the ratios.
Rule for Upper and Lower Limit for Maximization problem:

Allowable decrease = The smallest positive ratio

Allowable increase = The negative ratio closest to zero

For a minimization problem, the rules are reversed: The
allowable decrease is the –ve ratio closest to zero; and the
allowable increase is the smallest +ve ratio
Change in the RHS of a constraint
EXAMPLE Cont…
Q/S ratios (+ve and –ve) indicate the extent to which the
constraint level can be changed and still have the current
shadow price remain valid
 The smallest +ve ratio indicates how much the constraint
level can be decreased before it reaches the lower limit of its
range of feasibility
 The smallest –ve ratio (close to zero) indicates how much the
constraint level can be increased before it reaches its upper
limit of feasibility.
Required
Determine the “range of feasibility” for each of the
constraints in the microcomputer problem
Change in the RHS of a constraint
EXAMPLE Cont…
SOLUTION:

S1 S2 S3 Q Q/S1 Q/S2 Q/S3

SV
S1 1 6 -16/3 24 +24 +4 -4.5
X1 0 1 -1/3 9 ∞ +9 -27

X2 0 -1 2/3 4 ∞ -4 +6
Zj 0 10 40/3
740
Cj - Z j 0 -10 -40/3

Allowable decrease for S1 = +24; for S2 = +4; S3 = +6

Allowable increase for S1 = None; for S2 = -4; S3 = -4.5
 Change in the RHS of a constraint
EXAMPLE Cont…
SOLUTION
Range of feasibility for:
S1: 100-24≤ S1≤ 100+∞ i.e. S1≥76
S2: 22-4≤ S2≤ 22+4 i.e. 18 ≤ S2 ≤ 26
S3: 39-6≤ S3≤ 39+4.5 i.e. 33 ≤ S2 ≤ 43.5
 Determine the new optimal solution if the existing storage
constraint is increased by 3 cubic feet? What if by 4.5 cubic
feet? What if by 10 cubic feet?
 Determine the new optimal solution if the existing storage
constraint is decreased by 6 cubic feet? What if by 12 cubic
feet? What if by 10 cubic feet?
Change in the RHS of a constraint
SOLUTION: Increased by 3 cubic feet
SV S3 Q Current Solution Revised Solution

S1 -16/3 24 24+3*(-16/3) 8
X1 -1/3 9 9+3*(-1/3) 8
X2 2/3 4 4+3*(2/3) 6
Zj 40/3 740 740+3*(40/3) 780
Decreased by 6 cubic feet

SV S3 Q Current Solution Revised Solution

S1 -16/3 24 24+-6*(-16/3) 56
X1 -1/3 9 9+-6*(-1/3) 11
X2 2/3 4 4+-6*(2/3) 0
Zj 40/3 740 740+-6*(40/3) 660
 Change in the RHS of a constraint
EXERCISE:
Given the following LP problem and the final table and
determine the range of feasibility for each of the constraints
Maximize Z = 11X1 + 10X2 + 14X3
Subject to:
4X1 – X3 <= 0
5X1 + 2X2 + 5X3 <= 72
X1 <= 13
Cj 11 10 14 0 0 0 Q
SV
X1 X2 X3 S1 S2 S3

10 X2 .227 1 0 .227 .045 0 3.27

14 X3 .909 0 1 -.091 .182 0 13.09
0 S3 1 0 0 0 0 1 13
Zj 15 10 14 1 3 0 215.96
 Change in the RHS of a constraint
SOLUTION TO EXERCISE:
Range of feasibility for:
S1: S1≤ 143.85
S2: S2 ≥ 0
S3: S3 ≥ 0
A change in an objective function
coefficient (Decision variables)
NON BASIC VARIABLE [Range of Insignificance]
 Not in the solution variable at optimal level
 The NBV’s objective function coefficient can change
without causing that variable to enter the solution mix is
called its “Range of Insignificance”
 It will come to a solution variable if and only if the
amount of increase is greater than its Cj-Zj value
 A change in an objective function
coefficient (Decision variables)
EXAMPLE: Given the following final simplex table
determine the range over which the objective function
coefficient of variable X3 could change without
changing the optimal solution [Range of Insignificance]

Cj 120 105 112 0 0 0 Q

SV
X1 X2 X3 S1 S2 S3

120 X1 1 0 .06 .14 -.08 0 16.8

105 X2 0 1 1.1 -.1 .2 0 8
0 S3 0 0 .88 -.28 .16 1 16.4
Zj 120 105 122.7 6.3 11.4 0 2,856
Cj - Z j 0 0 -10.7 -6.3 -11.4 0
The range of insignificance for X3 is $122.7 or less
A change in an objective function
coefficient (Decision variables)
BASIC VARIABLE [Range of Optimality]
 The range over which the objective function coefficient
of a variable that is in solution can change without
changing the optimal values of the decision variables is
called its “RANGE OF OPTIMALITY”
 Note: However that, such a change would change the
optimal value of the objective function.
 To determine the range of optimality: The value in Cj-Zj
must be divided by the corresponding row values of the
variable in question [Cj-Zj / Xi].
 The rules for both maximization and minimization
problems are:
Allowable Increase = The smallest positive ratio

Allowable decrease = The negative ratio closest to zero

 A change in an objective function
coefficient (Decision variables)
BASIC VARIABLE [Range of Optimality]
 Thus, the range of optimality can be calculated by:
Cj Xi – Allowable decrease ≤ Cj Xi + Allowable increase
EXAMPLE: Given the following final simplex table determine
the range of optimality for the decision variables in the
solution mix
Cj 120 105 112 0 0 0 Q
SV
X1 X2 X3 S1 S2 S3

120 X1 1 0 .06 .14 -.08 0 16.8

105 X2 0 1 1.1 -.1 .2 0 8
0 S3 0 0 .88 -.28 .16 1 16.4
Zj 120 105 122.7 6.3 11.4 0 2,856
Cj - Z j 0 0 -10.7 -6.3 -11.4 0
A change in an objective function
coefficient (Decision variables)
SOLUTION: Range of optimality:
X1 X2 X3 S1 S2 S3
X1 1 0 0.06 0.14 -0.08 0
(Cj - Zj)/X1 0.0 ∞ -178.3 -45.0 142.5 ∞
X2 0 1 1.1 -0.1 0.2 0
(Cj - Zj)/X2 ∞ 0 -9.72 63 -57 ∞
Cj - Zj 0 0 -10.7 -6.3 -11.4 0

 Purple: not important column in the computation

 Red: Allowable to decrease
 Green: Allowable to increase

For X1 = 120-45 to 120+142.5: 75≤ CjX1 ≤ 262.5

For X2 = 105-9.72 to 105+63: 95.3≤ CjX2 ≤ 168
 SUMMARY PROBLEM
Let X1 = Quantity of regular blend
X2 = Quantity of extra blend
X3 = Quantity of puppy delite
Maximize Z = 0.2X1 + .18X2 + .25X3
Subject to:
1/3X1 +1/2 X2 <= 1500…………..K9
1/3X1 + 1/4X2 + 1/10X3 <= 1000…………..K8
1/3X1 + 1/4X2 + 9/10X3 <= 1000……………K1
X1,X2,X3 ≥ 0
The final table for the problem is:
Cj .2 .18 .25 0 0 0 Q
SV
X1 X2 X3 S1 S2 S3

.18 X2 0 1 -3.6 4 0 -4 2000

0 S2 0 0 -.8 0 1 -1 0

.2 X1 1 0 5.4 -3 0 6 1500

Zj .2 .18 .432 .12 0 .48 660

C -Z 0 0 -.182 -.12 0 -.48
 SUMMARY PROBLEM
a) What is the marginal value of a pound of K9? Over what
range is the value valid? Ans: $0.12; 1000 to 2000 pounds
b) By how much would profit decrease if there was 1 less
pound of K1 available? Ans $0.48 Determine the new
optimal solution Ans X2=2004, S2 =1 & X1=1494
c) The manager believes it is possible to increase the profit
per pound of Puppy delite to $0.40. Would that alter the
optimal solution? Explain. Ans No, it should be > 0.43
d) If the profit per unit of the extra blend dropped to $0.16
a pound, would the optimal quantities of the variables in
solution change? Would the optimal value of the objective
function change? If so, what would its new value be? Ans
The optimal quantities would not change, but Z would
decrease by $40
THE END OF THE CHAPTER
THANK YOU!